DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unno et al. (US 2020/0126773 A1).
Claim 1: Unno et al. discloses a susceptor for a film deposition apparatus or for an etching apparatus (paragraph [0026]), the susceptor including a ceramic plate (20 of Figure 1; paragraph [0027]) including a first surface (20a,23,22 of Figure 1) on which a wafer (W of Figure 1) is to be placed, and a second surface opposed (surface in contact with 40 of Figure 3) to the first surface, and embedded with an internal electrode (26,28 of Figure 3; paragraph [0028)); a cylindrical ceramic shaft (40 of Figure 3; paragraph [0029])) attached to the second surface of the ceramic plate; a gas supply hole (42 of Figure 3; paragraph [00299]) penetrating through the ceramic plate and the ceramic shaft, the gas supply hole starting from the first surface of the ceramic plate, passing through the second surface, and extending to a distal end of the ceramic shaft away from the ceramic plate (as depicted in Figures 3 and 8); and a porous plug (50 of Figure 5; paragraph [0039]) embedded in a portion of the gas supply hole corresponding to at least the ceramic plate (as depicted in Figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Unno et al. (US 2020/0126773 A1).
Claim 8: Unno et al. fails to disclose that the porous plug is further embedded in a portion of the gas supply hole corresponding to the ceramic shaft.
However, as addressed above Unno et al. does disclose a porous plug embedded in a portion of the gas supply hole corresponding to the ceramic shaft.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to move the porous plug of Unno et al. such that it was embedded in a portion of the gas supply hole corresponding to the ceramic shaft of Unno et al. This modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (US 2020/0126773 A1) in view of Lei et al. (US 6,494,955 B1).
Claim 2: Unno et al. fails to disclose a cooling jacket fixed to the distal end of the ceramic shaft, the cooling jacket including a through hole communicating with the gas supply hole.
However, Lei et al. teaches that it is known in the art to provide a cooling jacket (256 of Figure 5; Col. 7, Lines 51-60) fixed to the distal end of a shaft (204 of Figure 2a; Col. 3, Lines 39-53) of a susceptor (138 of Figure 2a), the cooling jacket including a through hole (514,516 of Figure 5; Col. 8, Lines 10-19) communicating with a gas supply hole (240,242 of Figure 2a; Col. 6, Lines 27-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lei et al. with that Unno et al. because the cooling jacket provides a means for controlling the temperature of the gas supplied to the susceptor. Further this modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that the ceramic shaft of Unno et al. would be connected to a cooling jacket such as that of Lei et al.
Claim 11: Lei et al. further teaches a clamp ring (524 of Figure 5; Col. 7, Lines 51-60) configured to engage with the distal end of the shaft (204 of Figure 5), and to fix the ceramic shaft to the cooling jacket (256 of Figure 5).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (US 2020/0126773 A1) in view of Inoue et al. (US 2023/0207370 A1)
Claim 3: Unno et al. fails to provide a protective pipe made of ceramic and forming an inner wall of the gas supply hole in a region between a lower end of the porous plug and the distal end of the ceramic shaft.
However, Inoue et al. teaches a protective pipe (60 of Figure 5C; paragraph [0026]) made of ceramic and forming an inner wall of the gas supply hole in a region between a lower end of the porous plug and the distal end of the ceramic shaft (as depicted in Figure 5c that protective pipe forms an inner wall between the plug 50 and the passage 34, further the pipe extends below the plug and is therefore located such it is in a region between a lower end of the plug and a bottom surface of the plate 30 to which a ceramic shaft would be connected in a configuration such as that the Unno et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the protective pipe of Inoue et al. with that of Unno et al. because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143(A)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that a protective pipe would be placed between the porous plug 50 and the inner wall 42 of Unno et al. Further this modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because it would provide insulation between the plug and the plate of Unno et al.
Claim 4: Inoue et al. further teaches that the protective pipe is made of alumina (paragraph [0026]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (US 2020/0126773 A1) in view of Shiraishi et al. (US 11,626,301 B2).
Claim 5: Unno et al. fails to disclose that the gas supply hole includes, in the ceramic plate, a small-diameter portion having a diameter less than a diameter of the porous plug, the small-diameter portion and a lower portion other than the small-diameter portion of the gas supply hole form a step, and an upper end of the porous plug is regulated by the step not to move above the step.
However, Shiraishi et al. teaches a susceptor that includes a gas supply hole (53 of Figure 2a), in a plate (11 of Figure 2a), a small-diameter portion (15w of Figure 2a) having a diameter less than a plug (90 of Figure 2a), the small-diameter portion and a lower portion other than the small-diameter portion of the gas supply hole form a step (as depicted in Figure 2a), and an upper end of the porous plug is regulated by the step not to move above the step (as depicted in Figure 2a the plug cannot move above the step because the diameter of the plug is greater than the diameter of the step).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a step in the plate of Unno et al. such as that of Shiraishi et al. in order to secure the plug in the plate and prevent it from moving upward in the plate. This modification would have been obvious to and well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to make because its prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements by known methods in order to achieve predictable results (MPEP 2143A(A)). In the instant case the predictable result would be that the ceramic plate of Unno et al. would include a step such as that of Shiraishi et al.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unno et al. (US 2020/0126773 A1) in view of Taguchi et al. (US 12,272,590 B2).
Claims 6 and 10: Unno et al. fails to provide an elastic member having gas permeability and provided at the distal end in the gas supply hole.
However, Taguchi et al. teaches an elastic member (38 of Figure 5) having gas permeability (the elastic member is a spring which is gas permeable) and provided at the distal end of a gas supply hole (42a of Figure 5)(Col. 10, Lines 38-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine teachings of Taguchi et al. with that of Unno et la. in order provide a spring in the gas supply of Unno et al. This elastic member would have been advantageous because it would assist in retaining the porous plug of Unno et al. in the gas supply hole.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON L VAUGHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5704. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sunil Singh can be reached at (571) 272-3460. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON L VAUGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726